Questions pertaining to marriage

[57thDimension]

Hello everyone,

So I was enormously shocked yesterday to find out from someone (a fellow Catholic) that sex is permitted in marriage in the Catholic view (I had brought up the question of why an author (of a book called “Holy Sex”) would be allowed to misrepresent the Church’s view on sex in such a heterodox fashion). They said it was orthodox.

So I’m a bit a confused now. When I was young (i.e. teenager), my parish youth group coordinator (and the religious brothers, too) taught us that sex was basically a necessary evil; the only possible exception was for producing children (but only for that reason; if there was even acknowledgment that a child would not be created, it was a mortal sin). We (about 55 of us; it was a large youth group) were taught techniques for suppressing any desire whatsoever (one of the stranger side effects for me specifically is nausea when I think of sex.)

Anyway, I have a lot of questions now (and I’m not really comfortable asking my priest); suffice to say I’m still rather bewildered at this new information. The first few questions (I’ll ask more as I get answers and as I think of them):

1. Is the view of sex and marriage I was taught orthodox? Is it a Catholic version of the Eastern Orthodox “akribia”? Or is it incorrect?
2. If it is in fact incorrect, what should I do (reading, perhaps?; since I’m not comfortable discussing the topic in person)? Are my current attitudes something that should be undone (for lack of a better word)?
3. Since sex is basically antithetical to me, should I enter the religious life (since I don’t have to struggle with any desire)?

Thank you all ahead of time for your answers.

+Sebastian

 

[bargio]

Read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West! And then read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II for a more in depth look at it all.

To sum up your questions though, there are two purposes of sex: procreation AND spousal bonding. Of course we always learned they go hand in hand, hence why artificial birth control is not allowed by the Church.

Anyways, hope this clears up a few things for the time being. I would really recommend theology of the body for beginners though! It contains a brief look at the history of heretical views as well as the current teachings on sex and its purpose.

Peace and God bless!

 

[thistle]

Hello everyone,

So I was enormously shocked yesterday to find out from someone (a fellow Catholic) that sex is permitted in marriage in the Catholic view (I had brought up the question of why an author (of a book called “Holy Sex”) would be allowed to misrepresent the Church’s view on sex in such a heterodox fashion). They said it was orthodox.

So I’m a bit a confused now. When I was young (i.e. teenager), my parish youth group coordinator (and the religious brothers, too) taught us that sex was basically a necessary evil; the only possible exception was for producing children (but only for that reason; if there was even acknowledgment that a child would not be created, it was a mortal sin). We (about 55 of us; it was a large youth group) were taught techniques for suppressing any desire whatsoever (one of the stranger side effects for me specifically is nausea when I think of sex.)

Anyway, I have a lot of questions now (and I’m not really comfortable asking my priest); suffice to say I’m still rather bewildered at this new information. The first few questions (I’ll ask more as I get answers and as I think of them):

1. Is the view of sex and marriage I was taught orthodox? Is it a Catholic version of the Eastern Orthodox “akribia”? Or is it incorrect?
2. If it is in fact incorrect, what should I do (reading, perhaps?; since I’m not comfortable discussing the topic in person)? Are my current attitudes something that should be undone (for lack of a better word)?
3. Since sex is basically antithetical to me, should I enter the religious life (since I don’t have to struggle with any desire)?

Thank you all ahead of time for your answers.

+Sebastian

Sorry but your questions are not clear to me.

Are you asking if sex is allowed within marriage? The answer is of course it is.
Are you asking if sex is a necessary evil? The answer is no it is not any kind of evil.

 

[1ke]

1. Is the view of sex and marriage I was taught orthodox?

No, what you were taught was abosutely NOT Church teaching.

Is it a Catholic version of the Eastern Orthodox “akribia”? Or is it incorrect?

It is incorrect entirely.

1. If it is in fact incorrect, what should I do (reading, perhaps?; since I’m not comfortable discussing the topic in person)?

Read some books such as Holy Sex by Greg Popcak, Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West, Three to Get Married by Archbishop Fulton Sheen for instance.

Are my current attitudes something that should be undone (for lack of a better word)?

Yes!

1. Since sex is basically antithetical to me, should I enter the religious life (since I don’t have to struggle with any desire)?

That is not a reason to enter religious life. IF you have a vocation to the relgious life, then you should enter.

I suggest you get some counseling from your priest.

 

[57thDimension]

Read some books such as Holy Sex by Greg Popcak, Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West, Three to Get Married by Archbishop Fulton Sheen for instance.

Is there anything online I could read? Perhaps something that starts off in a fairly benign way? As I mentioned earlier, my squeamishness won’t help me much and will likely make reading (and potentially buying) the abovementioned books an uncomfortable experience.

Yes!

Beyond reading about these things, what else could I do?

I suggest you get some counseling from your priest.

I’m not sure how well that will work, unfortunately .

One question that’s kind of bugging me is this: how prevalent was this incorrect version of Church teaching? I’ve heard of ultra-liberal interpretations and just dismissed them as heretical, but the one I received seems, ostensibly, to be more in the other direction. I was in the group around the year 2000.

Thank you all again for your answers.

+Sebastian

 

[thistle]

Is there anything online I could read? Perhaps something that starts off in a fairly benign way? As I mentioned earlier, my squeamishness won’t help me much and will likely make reading (and potentially buying) the abovementioned books an uncomfortable experience.

Beyond reading about these things, what else could I do?

I’m not sure how well that will work, unfortunately .

One question that’s kind of bugging me is this:** how prevalent was this incorrect version of Church teaching?** I’ve heard of ultra-liberal interpretations and just dismissed them as heretical, but the one I received seems, ostensibly, to be more in the other direction. I was in the group around the year 2000.

Thank you all again for your answers.

+Sebastian

You are the first one I have heard of who has been taught such nonsense so its obviously not prevalent.

 

[57thDimension]

Very strange indeed.

Are celibate marriages allowed though? Because I’m worried about entering a religious vocation for the wrong reasons. Uggh. This is all still rather confusing…

+Sebastian

 

[1ke]

Are celibate marriages allowed though?

The word celibate means unmarried, so no there are no celibate marriages.

But, what I believe you mean is continence-- refraining from sexual relations. The answer to that question is: maybe. It is possible for a couple to enter into a marriage in which they remain continent for an indefinite period.

HOWEVER, such a marriage can only be entered into under the guidance of a competent spiritual director and with the understanding on the part of BOTH parties that when you marry you exchange an absolute right of the spouses to sexual intercourse. This mean that if either party desires to begin conjugal relations the other party must be ready and willing to assume the duties of marriage immediately.

As an example, Louis and Zelie Martin (parents of St Therese of Liseux) began their marriage this way. They remained continent for the first 10 months of their marriage but then their spiritual director instructed them to begin conjugal life. They had 9 children.

You have some pretty serious issues. I do not think religious life or a continent marriag is your answer. Some counseling from a competent Catholic therapist is probably in order. PLEASE go talk to your priest.

 

[clem456]

Is there anything online I could read? Perhaps something that starts off in a fairly benign way? As I mentioned earlier, my squeamishness won’t help me much and will likely make reading (and potentially buying) the abovementioned books an uncomfortable experience.

+Sebastian

Theology of the Body will not make you squeamish, it is not graphic at all. It defines the meaning of our bodies and puts the body in it’s proper theological perspective, of which sexuality is a part. It discusses purity and respect for the body and spousal love and lots of other good things. It was a great read for me. I should have read the West offshoot first, as the original is very dense in philosophy, and I needed a dictionary handy. But it will not make you squeamish, rather it may help you sleep!!

 

[57thDimension]

But, what I believe you mean is continence-- refraining from sexual relations. The answer to that question is: maybe. It is possible for a couple to enter into a marriage in which they remain continent for an indefinite period.

Yes, that’s the word I was thinking of. Thanks.

HOWEVER, such a marriage can only be entered into under the guidance of a competent spiritual director and with the understanding on the part of BOTH parties that when you marry you exchange an absolute right of the spouses to sexual intercourse.

I did not know that. Frankly, though, I find it mildly disturbing. So a marriage cannot be predicated (for lack of a better word) on mutual continence?

This mean that if either party desires to begin conjugal relations the other party must be ready and willing to assume the duties of marriage immediately.

Sorry, but that just seems wrong. On what is that rule based?

You have some pretty serious issues.

It’s strange. I feel somewhat worse now knowing this all. I don’t see how my attitude is a serious issue, though. It seems liberal attitudes tend towards sinfulness, so wouldn’t restrictive attitudes be better? I really can’t help but be thoroughly convinced of the arguments presented to me when I was younger.

PLEASE go talk to your priest.

&&

Some counseling from a competent Catholic therapist is probably in order.

Well, he and I do discuss a wide range of topics on a regular basis, but he’s still rather aloof. Regardless, I have a hard time thinking of the topic, let alone uttering aloud it even to myself. I don’t see talking to my priest about it being possible. Alas, I know a few people who are not married, and don’t intend to (and are all quite happy as such); perhaps that’s a good path for me.

Thank you again for your replies.

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

Theology of the Body will not make you squeamish, it is not graphic at all. It defines the meaning of our bodies and puts the body in it’s proper theological perspective, of which sexuality is a part. It discusses purity and respect for the body and spousal love and lots of other good things. It was a great read for me. I should have read the West offshoot first, as the original is very dense in philosophy, and I needed a dictionary handy. But it will not make you squeamish, rather it may help you sleep!!

Well, I’m already squeamish as it is… I don’t know. I was taught about purity and I have no problem with it, so I don’t think I need to read it for that subject. And I don’t think I disrespect the body (unlike modern society)… Are you a squeamish person? Maybe you have an easier time reading about it.

+Sebastian

 

[superamazingman]

Very strange indeed.

Are celibate marriages allowed though? Because I’m worried about entering a religious vocation for the wrong reasons. Uggh. This is all still rather confusing…

+Sebastian

I think you need to have a long talk with a spiritual director.

 

[thistle]

I think you need to have a long talk with a spiritual director.

I agree.

 

[wasserfall]

Here is something you may find helpful, some very traditional, orthodox, Catholic sermons on marriage. In these sermons you will hear what marriage is, what the purpose of marriage is, and the role that marital relations play in Catholic marriage. Please listen to these (the 2011 series part 1 will do as a minimum, but the more the better)

2011 Series:
Part1: audiosancto.org/sermon/20110116-Marriage-part-1-What-is-Marriage.html
Part2: audiosancto.org/sermon/20110123-Marriage-part-2-The-Canonical-Form-of-Marriage.html
Part3: audiosancto.org/sermon/20110130-Marriage-part-3-The-Necessary-Purpose-of-Marriage-in-Society-Physical-Terms.html

2007 Series
Part1: audiosancto.org/sermon/20070520-Marriage-Rules-on-Marriage-Part-1.html
Part2: audiosancto.org/sermon/20070902-The-Meaning-of-the-Ceremonies-of-the-Traditional-Wedding-Mass-Part-2.html
Part3: audiosancto.org/sermon/20070909-The-Marriage-Contract-Part-3.html
Part4: audiosancto.org/sermon/20071014-Series-on-Marriage-Part-4-Periodic-Abstinence-and-NFP.html

 

[1ke]

I did not know that. Frankly, though, I find it mildly disturbing. So a marriage cannot be predicated (for lack of a better word) on mutual continence?

no

Sorry, but that just seems wrong. On what is that rule based?

it isn’t a “rule”. It is the very fabric of marriage, a truth of the Faith. The purpose of marriage is the begetting and raising of children. The threefold essential properties of marriage are fidelity, perpetuity, and fecundy. In it, the two spouses become one flesh. Their body is no longer their own, but their spouse’s.

See 1 Corinthians 7:4-5:
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

It’s strange. I feel somewhat worse now knowing this all. I don’t see how my attitude is a serious issue, though.

You do not have an objective perspective on the situation. That is why I suggest counseling.

It seems liberal attitudes tend towards sinfulness, so wouldn’t restrictive attitudes be better?

Um, no.

I really can’t help but be thoroughly convinced of the arguments presented to me when I was younger.

It is a shame you will not read Church documents and books given imprimatur by orthodox bishops. What you were taught was VERY wrong and VERY disturbing.

 

[57thDimension]

I think you need to have a long talk with a spiritual director.

I moved (for reasons of school) to somewhere with a much more liberal diocese. I would need to find a spiritual director who has (I suppose) a more conservative outlook; I don’t think I’ll find one here, though.

A friend of mine mentioned a while ago (on an unrelated topic) that there are Eastern Orthodox websites that have spiritual directors available via online chat (IRC, IM, etc). Is there a Catholic equivalent?

 

[57thDimension]

The purpose of marriage is the begetting and raising of children. The threefold essential properties of marriage are fidelity, perpetuity, and fecundy. In it, the two spouses become one flesh. Their body is no longer their own, but their spouse’s.

See, the first part we were taught was okay (marriage is for children). But the last statement, not quite. One of the worst things you could do in marriage would be to have sex for any reason but to produce children (otherwise a mortal sin).

I can’t remember the title of the main book we used (there were several, though), but it had a very thorough discussion of the topic.

I remember a few things:

The one that stands out the most is: “marriage is prostitution” spoken by Tatian. This probably sums up my view on forced conjugal relations. I really cannot stomach the view people are putting forth here. It seems almost violent. In fact it is likely the major reason why I would not get married.

There was a diagram in the cover of one of the books (almost like the shield of the Trinity) that had the three vocations (single, married, and religious) with words to the effect of celibacy being far superior to marriage (and anything in it). I believe that idea was from a decree of the Council of Trent. Essentially, celibacy was superior to marriage, but continence in marriage was superior to the view that one could have sex for non-procreative purposes. We had established a sliding scale of sinfulness, basically.

See 1 Corinthians 7:4-5:
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

I recall this, though:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 6-7, 29, 35
“1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband…6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.7 I wish that all of you were as I am…35"

One last thing: they had said that Church teaching on the topic had changed in the 1920s to the one that is currently being put forth here (the modern one?). Were they being truthful in that regard?

Thank you all again for replies,

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

It seems liberal attitudes tend towards sinfulness, so wouldn’t restrictive attitudes be better?

Um, no.

How so? I cannot see why that would not be the case.

It is a shame you will not read Church documents and books given imprimatur by orthodox bishops. What you were taught was VERY wrong and VERY disturbing.

I never said I would not. It is either a case of having been taught something (presumed correct until given evidence to the contrary) or being unable to read something do to sensitivity. I will do the best I can.

As an aside, are all the positions you’ve taken present in “Theology of the Body”?

+Sebastian

 

[wasserfall]

1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 6-7, 29, 35
“1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband…6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.7 I wish that all of you were as I am…35"

This verse is entirely in conformity with Catholic doctrine on marriage.

1. Celibacy is a higher calling.
2. Marriage is a remedy for concupiscence.

 

[57thDimension]

1. Celibacy is a higher calling.

And one aspect is lack of sexual relations. So why not have that in marriage?

1. Marriage is a remedy for concupiscence.

The way this:* “I say this as a concession, not as a command.”*
was interpreted for me is that you have to be married to have sex, but you do not have to have sex if you are married.

+Sebastian